Being Pushed from the Playing Field

I'd like to continue along the lines of the previous posting. We are all fermiliar with the sports that involve fair verses foul territory. If you're in fowl territory you are "out of bounds" and all that and are penalized. There are certain playing board games such as "Conquest" or whatever that world domination game Marcus had last year, where you move the pieces along pre-set paths. It's not even to enter mind that you deviate from these prescribed spaces. This brings us to models of the Universe, usually done in those green grid lines. There are various proposed shapes of these Universes. For instance if you pick the donut shaped Universe as your model (no doubt Homer Simpson's favorite) you can not move the "playing pieces" into the center hold because IT isn't a part of the Universe. It isn't on the field of play. This truth is more literally illustrated on that Shirlock Holms Startrek episode where Captain Piccard demonstrates to Moriarity what happens when you attempt to throw an object, such as a book off the holograph grid. It just disappears, just like that Jet demonstration in the 9 - 11 video circulating now.

MEET YOUR "SUPER-SELF"

Now I'd like to get into a concept merely hinted at at our last posting. Often you see waves reflect off of the edges of a swimming pool but the principle will work even with swinging a rope of having the ripples reflect back. We proposed that we one and all on Planet Earth may be being "Pushed" from the "Playing Field", which is this universe. Some Force is proposed to be acting on us all that is unproved and not perceptable by our limited means but none the less is quite real in the grand scheme of things. Some may say that Einsteins theory of relativity will not allow for acceleration beyond the speed of light even though most every Scientist now will agree that Black Holes do indeed exist. What they do is provide an "outside force. Some might say they are "unduly influencing the game" just as Moriaritie's calling for "The Arch" in the computer simulation was in all fairness "cheating". So matter is being pulled faster than by all rights it is allowed to go. Last posting we "ran the numbers". The theory I'm proposing now is one, hence, that we have already "mathematically proven". Scientists want a math formula. I've got that. If our souls go out to the year 2061 and then time, space and mass doubles back on itself it doesn't take a genious to deduce that we will at that point begin to live our lives backwards. Our thought process and actions will just run in reverse and we will retrace every step we made during life. Just to review using the "Clark Kent dash principle" we know that for time to alter, mass has to alter to "adjust" to it or nothing makes sense. Hence any negative mass will measure positive, if it also isn't being measured in negative time. The implications of this is that we have a "super-self" living with us all the time. Now we don't know if Jeff Lynne's or Jimmy Pages "super-self" decided to get cute and write backward song lyrics. It could be that John Lennon was at his most creative when his super-self was most active. Since we don't know the mass of the soul- - it's probably zero and besides it doesn't matter anyhow. The question in your minds is "How do we or how did we experiance the consciousness of this Super-self?" Well, there are ways we can sense its presence. For one thing any time you have experianced a bad emotion BEFORE a bad event, or a good emotion BEFORE a good event, or any inter-play of these, you have interracted with your super-self. Your super-self may even be responsable for some of your most brilliant ideas you seemed to get our of nowhere. Your super-self knows the future but regards the past as disputable, much like being influenced by a Joel Olsteen sermon. The past to your Super-self is irrelivent. Only the future is important. This super-self can never be wrong because he isn't GUESSING at the future, he's actually LIVED it.

It then comes into question what happens to objects that are "pushed from the playing field". Logic would dictate that despite Einstein's oppinion on the subject, the foreward vector of motion twords the center of a black hole would indicate that somewhere, somehow, that mass is STILL in the black hole. But this Black Hole is like a sub-routine in the Pascal computer language. It has its own set of variable names and equations. We don't know what consciousness THERE, that is, INSIDE the black hole is like, so we're kind of back to square one in that department. Perhaps if you take Einstein very literally- - nothing indeed survives being "pushed from the field", just like the Holideck of the StarShip enterprize. You can't cheat like Moriarity did and somehow game the system to fool everyone else that you've escaped intact. What we can deduce that your mass logically should be added to that of the Black Hole like every other asteroid and planet and star that falls into it, making the Black Hole grow that much more.

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, & THE HOLY SPIGOT

Hey, I was just watching that movie today, give me a break. I would like to talk a little about Greek translations of the Bible and "having a point" and then looking around to cherry pick evidentiary examples to prove it. First of all there is the whole idea of what is your Soul doing when it isn't occupying a body? We don't know but I would presume that it is sleeping. We know from Bhudist teaching that an attribute of knowing the Bhudda is that one is "Awake". We in the past have alerted you that the Greek word for resurrection means "Awake". One might suppose "Awake" as opposed to being "Asleep". This needn't be a physical thing but merely a sorm of psychic awareness. Even Scientology speaks about this. If you are Awake you are truely enlightened, and visa versa. So when Paul and John (not the Beatles) speak of the resurrection, they aren't saying you necessarly have to die and come back to life in order to achieve this state of Awake-ness. You merely have to "find yourself" or encounter with God, or whatever. For the Bible teaches you can experiance the Power of the resurrection RIGHT NOW. It is written "He who believes my words has already passed from death to life".

There are other sentenses that come out comical is taken literally. We know that the word for Spirit means "wind" as per example the "mighty rushing wind" in Acts two, when the Holy Spirit first came. You've seen those movies where a wind blows through a window and somebody responds, "Honey, is that you?" Ghosts and wind are often associated together. Then there is the line, "What's that in the road, a head?" Jesus told the repentant thief on the Cross, "I tell you this today: You will be with me in paradise". In other words "I'm letting you know about your destiny right now, while you are still alive". If you translate it "Today you will be with me in Paradise" you run into some knotty theological problems. Another case is the one about the healing of the blind man in John ch. nine. Jesus answers the authorities "This man's sin originated neither from himself, nor from his parents". This answered their question. But then Jesus goes on to say "But that the glory of God be revealed, I must work and my father works" and after Jesus said this he healed the man. Some would argue that infirmity gives Glory to God, but I strenuously disagree. It all depends on the punctuation of sentenses. There are others such as Mary, a virgin giving birth to a son. Some say that Greek is an annointed translated and even through the original Hebrew word means "Young woman" that the Greek means "Virgin" and we have to go with that. A couple of weeks ago I saw the Jerusalem Bible on my parent's bookshelf and was surprised to find that my own copy of the book was still in a box with my things. This is for people who like their Bible translated out of the original French. They are running adds now for the Geneva Bible, "which is the Bible the pilgrims took with them in 1620. I have a copy of the I Ching that was translated out of the German version. Sometimes if you translate things enough "things" can emerge you never saw before, kind of like the reading of tea leaves. There is a line "All scripture is inspired by God". Other people translate this passage "Every scripture (which is) inspired by God is profitable- - - " ect. ect. I have to go with translation A, knowing a little Greek myself and their grammar. Some people like to pull doctrine from things not in the original text. How often have you heard "Avoid even the appearance of Evil". What the original says is "Abstain from every form of evil". Not the same thing. Of course some people see prophetic things in the most obscure of texts. Some people even say "every prophecy has a near and a far application". This is a cleaver of getting extra milage of scripture which has already been fulfilled. Well, I hope this blog has been helpful.

Next time we will be meeting in the blog "Marcus in Exile". I'll see you there.

Isac Newton and "The End" AD 2061

Could it be that Sylvia Browne is actually right about something. She says that the Universe as we know it won't last all that much longer. Of course people have been saying this since the days of Zoroastrianism 2500 years ago, so what's new? There are ways in the abstract that scientists have come up with that "Everything as we know it" could be gone, but the odds of any one of them occuring is slim, to say the least. However Sir Isac Newton in one of his gravity equations came up with the figure of 2060, which the Federation says is 2061 where physics and such as we know it will be permanently altered and life on earth will never be the same, if we're even here at all. I would like to take you back to a few simple examples. Keep in mine when someone of either very low IQ or very high IQ says there's going to "keep things simple" you know you're headed for trouble. I don't know about you but I find the "For Dummies" books very taxing reading, in most cases. There is an old skit where Ronald Reagan was explaining to David Brinkley about the economy and he was saying "Suppose your mom baked a big blueberry pie" and then he goes on to talk about half of the pie being for domestic spending and the other half is for Defence spending, and the other half is for the retirement of the national debt" and Brinkley says "Hold it right there. Your pie has three halves and a pie only has two halves". Then Reagan goes into a more complex explanation about pieces of apples being cut up and put in multiple glasses and by the end of the thing everyone is confused. Bearing this thought in mind- - I say there are says to simplify scientific explanations. If you've read "Space.com" you know they have these "mysteries of the universe" they discuss, and if there is one thing you can deduce from all of their articles is nobody knows what the hell they're talking about! Christians love to talk about the "bubble gum" analogy of the Universe where the bubble gets blown up bigger and bigger and then bursts and that's the end of everything. Another analogy Christians love to use is the one about "entropy' where all of creation is gradually losing energy and everything is winding down and spreading out and losing its shape and getting colder and colder, where eventually you'll have this Finite amount of matter spread out over an infinite amount of space in some kind of a formless cold mass. Personally I say you can chuck both of these theories in the trash can. Now in Space.com they have "discovered" that the Big Bang theory (that I have been criticizing) may not be the answer to anything and "perhaps time is infinite after all). They also talk about this mysterious "dark force" that pervaids the Universe, which I maintain is "ether". In another segment they speak of galaxies at the "edge" of the Universe being "frozen in time". In reality they are not "frozen" but if their theory is correct to begin with, these galaxies are just "moving through time very quickly" so appear "frozen" to us. But if you accept my "ether" theory these galaxies needn't be "frozen" or even time-altered in any matter.

I would now like to take some contradictions I myself have introduced to my audience which you readers may be curious about. As you know we have presented two conflicting ideas about what Black Holes are like. In one view we speak of the "Dangerous Event Horizon" where as you travel tword a black hole you are able to "see" more and more into distant galaxies you were never able to see before. I likened this to looking back into Church history and seeing further and further back into history, but at some point you pass the "point of no return", or would Kansas has it "Point of Know Return"? You've heard the line, "We could tell you everything you've been trying to find out, but then we'd have to kill you". Either this or a man "discovers the secret to the Universe" but in the process is driven insane, and so is no good to anybody. In either case these people have "slipped beyond the event horizon" of people here on earth as they are sucked headlong into a Black Hole. They go so far into a black hole it's impossible for them to get back. This is one theory. The other theory and the one I'd like to center on now, is the theory we came up a few months ago. Picture a black circle and around this is a bunch of bright lines you can make any color you wish- -and the lines are real intense and close around the black hole kind of like the carona of the sun during a total eclipse. But as you move away from the "surface" the lines thin out. We said that as you accelerate tword a Black hole that space stretches out in your own perception, as you in reality shrink. So there appears to be more space than you thought. (I'm just listening to the drum solo by Santana right now) Anyhow, what this "space" theory does is lay to rest this idea put forth by Rush in the song "Cygnus X 1" in which your feet and head are pulled apart as you plunge tword a black hole. It would never happen that way because you're be shrunk as flat as a pancake before this ever happened.

Now we come to the point of this blog posting. This is the whole idea that since space is shrunk in the direction of a black hole, you can't be certain just how much "space" there is between you and the Black Hole. In science there is a state called gravitational stasis, or you might say "zero gravity". For instance if you're in a jet plane doing an Excel or Lotus style missile trajectory path following acceleration and trajectory peramaters properly in a parabolic path, and you are on the inside of the plane, you will experiance zero gravity. In like manner, if you're in a space capsule orbiting earth you experiance zero gravity. But in neither case are you actually FREE of any gravitational force. What you are free of is the APPEARANCE of gravity. This is an important concept to remember, because things are not always as they seem. Some may ask "Where is the nearest black hole to us?" and "Is it the one they say is in the center of the milky way?" Well, we can't be sure. You see if space is "shrunk" in the direction of a black hole, then a Black Hole may be a lot CLOSER than we think. (time for a "Beechwood Park" break) Do you remember the model of progressive falling into black holes we brought up a few months ago? There was one minor error in my thinking some of you druggies with a few brain cells that still work may have figured out already. That is the questions "If the edge of the black hole are shrinking all around at the speed of light how can more and more and stuff be falling INTO a Black Hole and have it be getting Smaller?" The thing we forgot to take into account is that the inner WALL of the outside of the black hole (if you can follow that) is constantly moving OUTWARD. This is to say that is Encroaching upon normal space! What this means is that space in our universe is constantly being Consumed by space in the black hole. Harken back to the idea of the water in a lake or pond. You've heard of "The sound barrier". Once you break the sound barrier by exceeding the speed of sound there is a sonic boom and then "everything gets back to normal". I would like to suggest that there is a "light barrier" posed by the limitation of speed that you may travel in the ether of space. In other wards the "ripples of water" at the front of the speed boat now occupy negative space. Not only this but all of creation now occupies negative space and has negative mass, and by the way experiances forward time as going backwards. I'm flashing to the conclusion of Beatles Anthology where you have the final note of "A Day in the Life" played backwards, then foreward, and I'd like to suggest that a crossing of the "light barrier" is one thing being represented. So it could be that 2061 is the final year in time, at least for us. We don't know. We have no idea what it would be like to occupy negative space, have negative mass and go through negative time. But at the same time we don't know if it's really negative mass as measured from a distance or not. It's kind of like optics and sometimes if an image is beyond infinity then it shows up as a different kind (or form) of image over on the "Other Side". So the matter is "still there" with positive mass- - but only if measured in the old system. But as we see things everything is reversed from before. We don't know how "The soul" if there is one, will react to this sort of thing. What we do know is that this "change" in matter will occur rappidly - almost all at once and without warning to prepare for the event in any manner.

I have two topics left and am only going to discuss one of them. Eronious Greek translation of the New Testament or possible Vice Presidential candidates? OK. Vice Presidential candidates it is. For Obama my 2nd. choice is Jim Webb of Virginia. My first choice is Joe Byden. Joe Byden brings intellectual "gravitos" to the office, with his vast foreign policy credibility, and also a good track record on women's issues, and he is also a little to the right of Obama and is from a different part of the country. In terms of Mc Cain to my way of thinking his choice is obvious, particularly if it's Obama. And that is Condelisa Rice. She has the intellectual credibility that Mc Cain lacks and she's younger, blacker, and from a different gender. And she is also an accomplished pianest. Either VP candidate has to be prepared to end political life as they have known it and be someone elses' lackey. But these are my recomendations.